The League of Conservation voters has compiled a whole list of reasons not to vote for John McCain, some of which are nuanced and good. But they didn't see fit to use any of them in their new anti-McCain ad that just started running in Colorado. Their attack is a lot more basic: McCain wants to take your water. The evidence for this claim lies in McCain's ill-thought-out -- and quickly repudiated -- remark to the Pueblo Chieftain that the Colorado Compact, which governs the Colorado River's allocation between the seven states that make up its watershed, "obviously needs to be renegotiated."
"My opponent wants to steal your water" has become a popular line of attack this fall in Colorado, with Bob Schaffer getting into the act by accusing Mark Udall of having a nefarious water-grabbing agenda when he voted to protect the Clean Water Act. Even by the standards of political attacks, it's a pretty asinine accusation. Water issues are incredibly complex -- and are only going to get more so as climate change makes the West drier. They demand nuance and -- yes -- compromise. The last thing we need is for water to become so politically radioactive that politicians refuse to touch it.
The McCain campaign -- by now looking for any dirt they can get their hands on -- has just released a web ad attacking Obama for his ties to Acorn, the progressive community organizing group. The ad tries to link Acorn to the mortgage crisis and accuses it of trying to steal the election by submitting fraudulent voter registrations. On this point, the ad has a Western back story. Acorn's Las Vegas offices were raided last week by state officials who accused the organization of trying to register people who didn't exist or didn't live in Nevada, including some members of the Dallas Cowboys.
But here's where the story gets a little more complex. Acorn actually told state officials about many of the allegedly fraudulent voter registration forms. They were submitted by hired canvassers who had fallen behind on meeting their voter-registration quotas, and apparently got desperate enough to start filling in registration forms themselves. But third-party voter registration drives are required by law to turn in each registration form they receive -- even if that form attempts to register Donald Duck.
Nobody's disputing that some of the registration forms Acorn submitted were fraudulently filled out. What's less clear is whether these fraudulent forms reflect badly on the organization itself, or just on some rogue canvassers. What's abundantly clear is that it would be hard for these fraudulent voter registrations to have any impact on the election. Fraudulent registrations are the easy part of vote fraud. The harder part is having someone go to the polls, claim to be Donald Duck or Terrell Owens, and get shown to a voting booth before some election worker catches on. It seems that the McCain campaign and its talk-show proxies don't think that Nevada's election volunteers are very smart.
We've got a tight U.S. Senate race in Colorado. The incumbent Republican, Wayne Allard, is stepping out after two terms. Competing to replace him are Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer.
Udall's environmental credentials seem pretty solid, given his voting record in the House, where he has represented Colorado's second congressional district for the past decade. Schaffer represented Colorado's fourth district for three terms from 1997 to 2003, and he supported the Spanish Peaks Wilderness bill.
Go to Schaffer's campaign and you see a picture of the family standing in an aspen grove. We are told there that "the family enjoys skiing, snowboarding, backpacking, and biking in the Colorado Rockies." His campaign commercials have shown wind turbines generating clean electricity.
But then again, the League of Conservation Voters recently named Schaffer to its "Dirty Dozen" list, and after he left Congress, he went to work for an energy company. At his campaign appearances, you sometimes hear chants of "Drill here. Drill now. Pay less."
And that may not be a contradiction. Just think of the abundance of outdoor guidebooks -- to flowers, trees, animal tracks and scat, rocks, etc. -- you find on bookstore shelves, and imagine a new one, something like "Bob Schaffer's Guide to the Colorado Outdoors."
Then envision a couple -- let's call them Bill and Betty -- out for a walk.
"Betty, what's making that noise over there?"
"I don't know. I can't see it because it's behind the mancamp."
"A mancamp? I thought it was just some big trailer houses."
Read More ...
The burning question in Sevier County, Utah, to build or not to build a new 270-megawatt coal-fired power plant, will be answered by voters in November. Sevier County citizens collected enough signatures to place Proposition 1, which would amend the county's land use ordinance to require a vote before approving any permits for coal-fired plants, on the ballot. However, the measure was bounced off the ballot following a District Court decision in September. But yesterday, the state Supreme Court overturned that decision, giving citizens some direct power over development in their communities.
Earlier this year, Utah's state legislature passed a bill that prohibited the use of ballot initiatives to create or change land-use and zoning ordinances. The Supreme Court's ruling, which has not yet been released, will likely strike the law down as unconstitutional.
According to a Salt Lake Tribune article, 175 absentee ballots have already been mailed to voters -- without Proposition 1. Every vote will count in this rural county (which has fewer than 19,000 residents), where a seven-year-long battle has pitted those hoping for the new jobs promised by Sevier Power Co. against those who fear the negative environmental impacts.
If you've ever tried to fondle a saguaro, you know they feature a pretty effective deterrent against such behavior. But spines, it appears, are now passé.
To combat cactus rustlers -- who can sell the saguaros to landscapers -- the National Park Service is planning to imbed microchips into Arizona's most enticing specimens. Once past the planning stages, officials at Saguaro National Park will begin injecting the cacti with dime-sized chips. Rangers will be equipped with magic microchip wands. Wave one over a marked saguaro -- be it in the back of a truck or in a plant nursery -- and bingo, the wand will pick up that plant's unique code.
Saguaros can live to be more than 200 years old. The microchip manufacturer claims its chips can last about half that time.
It's somehow sad that these wild old symbols of the Southwest will now be searchable in a database. But the price just one swiped saguaro can bring -- over $1,000 -- means that the plant's built-in bristling anti-theft devices are no longer adequate. Another case of codifying the wild in order to save it.
Just days after the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation raised serious concerns about the Bureau of Land Management's plan to open up rock art-rich Nine Mile Canyon to 800 more gas wells, the agency is under the scrutiny of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office for its extensive use of categorical exclusions to permit energy projects in Wyoming and Utah without environmental review, according to the Associated Press.
The practice, authorized by the 2005 Energy Act, has been used thousands of times at field offices in Price and Vernal, Utah; Farmington, N.M.; and Pinedale, Wyo., said GAO officials, citing the bureau's own figures. Agency officials say they were just doing their job, and that they don't set policy.
In Vernal, the BLM field office waived environmental review of oil and gas projects 491 times during the 2007 fiscal year alone, GAO officials told the AP.
With the BLM rushing to open much of Utah's red rock country to motorized recreation and oil and gas development, and permitting 3,700 new wells on Wyoming's Pinedale Anticline in the midst of ozone spikes and precipitous declines of mule deer and sage grouse populations, the scrutiny probably couldn't come at a better time.
But the information is not exactly a revelation: It's no secret that the Bush administration has worked hard to fast track the development of domestic natural gas and oil supplies at the expense of wildlife habitat, air quality, recreation, and cultural resources.
More important is what will be done with these numbers. Given that Democrats and Republicans are pushing for more domestic drilling, with both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain hammering that point in their energy platforms (albeit in different ways), it will be interesting to see if a new administration of either stripe will make any attempt to slow the natural gas rush on the West's public lands.
The October 1st edition of the radio science show “Earth and Sky” featured a US Forest Service official asserting that the acreage of individual wildfires has increased dramatically in just a decade. The Deschutes National Forest in Oregon was provided as an example and climate change was held up as the cause for the dramatic change.
These Forest Service assertions were – at best - half truths. The size of Western wildfires has also increased dramatically because:
- As research and experience on the ground have documented, logging usually increases the rate of spread of fire for up to 30 or more years after the area is logged and the extent of logged forests on public and private land has increased over time;
- The Forest Service regularly increases the size of wildfires with huge burn outs, which they then do not distinguish (subtract) from fire acreage statistics;
- The Bush Administration put Forest Service fire spending on a budget; since then some FS managers have used large burn outs to increase burned acreage in order to get larger future fire fighting budgets.
Most Forest Service managers – and most press outlets - are in denial concerning the connection between logging and fire. While there is a body of research on the connection between logging and fire intensity, rate of fire spread, etc., this research is rarely if ever mentioned in connection with fire risk. Instead, the timber industry exploits climate change and Western wildfires year after year to argue – often through surrogates - that more logging is need to reduce fire risk. This fire season we have seen a flood of such propaganda in the editorial pages of the regions large and small newspapers.
Read More ...
The scandal-plagued Interior Department has certainly provided plenty of material for journalists during the seven-plus years of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the tabloid-style headlines have come at a price: the pervasive mismanagement of the nation's natural resources, from endangered species and clean water to federally-owned oil and gas reserves. Are things likely to be any different under a McCain or an Obama administration? CQ Politics has tried to answer this question by publishing a list of each candidate's likely picks for Secretary of the Interior. If the list is accurate, it lends real credibility to the Obama camp's contention that a McCain presidency would mean more of the same.
According to CQ, McCain's top picks would be Wayne Allard, Steve Pearce, and current Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. Allard is the retiring Colorado senator who earned a 20% rating from the League of Conservation voters during the 107th Congress. Pearce, a U.S. House member from New Mexico who looks likely to lose his ongoing Senate race to Democrat Tom Udall, owns an oilfield services company and has received more donations from oil companies than from any other industry. His lifetime LCV rating is 1%. He has voted for bills designed to scale back the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Policy Act, and wrote in the Albuquerque Journal that "Inflexible environmental extremists create a tremendous problem for our environment."
CQ's Obama shortlist, on the other hand, contains Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana, and two U.S. House members: Mark Udall and Jay Inslee. Udall would get picked only if he loses his race for the Colorado U.S. Senate seat that Allard is vacating. Schweitzer's support for "clean coal" might rankle some environmentalists, but he is a Western populist who might be able to win grassroots support for more environmentally-friendly Interior Department policies. Inslee, a member of House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a strong proponent of action on climate change -- he was, for a time, a guest blogger at climateprogress.org -- and was the House sponsor of the Roadless Area Conservation Act, a bill that would make permanent the Clinton-era rule protecting National Forest roadless areas.
With 79% of Americans now convinced the country is on the wrong track, both presidential candidates are trying to lay claim to the mantle of "change." But when it comes to the Interior Department, it's becoming more and more evident that one of them is just posturing.
The EPA's "self-inflicted lobotomy" is about to be reversed -- at least partially. More than a year ago, in response to Bush budget cuts, the agency began dismantling its network of 26 technical libraries, a crucial repository of scientific information for the agency's own researchers and the public. It closed several regional libraries and moved tens of thousands of documents into uncatalogued "information dumps" so that it could digitize those documents. Critics saw the move as an attempt to restrict access to information on health risks, corporate polluters, and other important data, and Congress finally forced it to stop "deaccessioning" its holdings.
Now, as of Sept. 30, the agency has reopened at least four of those closed facilities, and is once again providing library access to the public and its own staffers, according to a notice in the Federal Register.
But the damage inflicted on the EPA's vast collection of scientific, environmental and legal documents may be hard to undo. Jim Retting, president of the American Library Association, testified before Congress in March:
"Unfortunately, there continues to be a lot that we don't know: exactly what materials have been being shipped around the country, whether there are duplicate materials in other EPA libraries, whether these items have been or will be digitized, and whether a record is being kept of what is being dispersed and what is being discarded. We remain concerned that years of research and studies about the environment may be lost forever," he said.
Both the agency and Congress would do well to bear in mind Carl Sagan's words: "I think the health of our civilization, the depth of our awareness about the underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all be tested by how well we support our libraries."
Renewable energy sources may not belch carbon dioxide or other nasty
gasses into the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean they're impact-free.
Solar power, if done on the scale necessary to replace coal, would take up huge swaths of desert land. Wind turbines kill
birds and bats and, to some people's eyes, just aren't very pretty.
Geothermal development carries with it the risk of drilling into hell.
All will require the construction of a lot of new transmission lines, some of which may have to go through some sensitive -- and scenic -- places.
That's what makes this map of EPA-listed contaminated sites with high wind-energy potential so interesting. The places on the map are pretty messed up already, so it's hard to imagine that anyone would have a problem with re-developing them as wind farms. And many of the places, as industrial sites, already have transmission lines going to them.
If you go to the EPA website, you'll find data that you can plug into Google Earth to make maps of contaminated sites with potential for other types of renewable energy-development. These contaminated sites won't provide all the energy we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But developing them for renewable energy could be an uncontroversial -- and redemptive -- way to start.